The impact of traditional psychiatric services and case management services on the functioning of people with schizophrenia: A cross-national study in Nova Scotia and Texas

The purpose of this study was to determine the impact of traditional psychiatric services with case management services on the functioning of people with schizophrenia. Traditional services were defined as routine clinic services consisting of medication follow-along, psychotherapy, and support services. Case management consisted of activities involved in linking, planning, and monitoring services for the outpatient client who has schizophrenia. The target population was adult schizophrenics who had been receiving outpatient clinic services for a minimum of six months. Structured interviews were conducted using standardized scales (e.g., Quality of Life, Self-Efficacy, and Brief Symptom Inventory) with 78 outpatient client volunteers from two sites: Nova Scotia (Canada) and Texas (USA). The researcher tested for differences in psychiatric symptomatology, recidivism, and quality of life for persons with schizophrenia receiving traditional psychiatric services in Nova Scotia and traditional plus case management services in Texas. Data were collected from the structured interviews and medical records review forms. Types of services were blocked into low and high levels of Intensity (frequency x minutes) and compared to determine the relative contribution of each. Finally, the role of clients' self-efficacy was tested as an intervening variable. Although the findings did not support the hypotheses in the direction anticipated, there were some interesting and useful results. From the Nova Scotia site, clients who received low levels of services were hospitalized less compared to the Texas site. The more psychotic a patient was the higher their involvement in medication follow-along and the more monitoring they received. The more psychotherapy received, the lower the reported satisfaction with social relationships. Of particular interest is the role that self-efficacy played in improved client outcomes. Although self-efficacy scores were related to improved functioning, the mechanism for this still needs to be clarified through subsequent research. ^

Risk factors for surgical site infections among patients undergoing major colon surgery in the United States 2007-2009

Background: Surgical site infections (SSIs) after abdominal surgeries account for approximately 26% of all reported SSIs. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) defines 3 types of SSIs: superficial incisional, deep incisional, and organ/space. Preventing SSIs has become a national focus. This dissertation assesses several associations with the individual types of SSI in patients that have undergone colon surgery. ^ Methods: Data for this dissertation was obtained from the American College of Surgeons' National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP); major colon surgeries were identified in the database that occurred between the time period of 2007 and 2009. NSQIP data includes more than 50 preoperative and 30 intraoperative factors; 40 collected postoperative occurrences are based on a follow-up period of 30 days from surgery. Initially, four individual logistic regressions were modeled to compare the associations between risk factors and each of the SSI groups: superficial, deep, organ/space and a composite of any single SSI. A second analysis used polytomous regression to assess simultaneously the associations between risk factors and the different types of SSIs, as well as, formally test the different effect estimates of 13 common risk factors for SSIs. The final analysis explored the association between venous thromboembolism (VTEs) and the different types of SSIs and risk factors. ^ Results: A total of 59,365 colon surgeries were included in the study. Overall, 13% of colon cases developed a single type of SSI; 8% of these were superficial SSIs, 1.4% was deep SSIs, and 3.8% were organ/space SSIs. The first article identifies the unique set of risk factors associated with each of the 4 SSI models. Distinct risk factors for superficial SSIs included factors, such as alcohol, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, dyspnea and diabetes. Organ/space SSIs were uniquely associated with disseminated cancer, preoperative dialysis, preoperative radiation treatment, bleeding disorder and prior surgery. Risk factors that were significant in all models had different effect estimates. The second article assesses 13 common SSI risk factors simultaneously across the 3 different types of SSIs using polytomous regression. Then each risk factor was formally tested for the effect heterogeneity exhibited. If the test was significant the final model would allow for the effect estimations for that risk factor to vary across each type of SSI; if the test was not significant, the effect estimate would remain constant across the types of SSIs using the aggregate SSI value. The third article explored the relationship of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and the individual types of SSIs and risk factors. The overall incidence of VTEs after the 59,365 colon cases was 2.4%. All 3 types of SSIs and several risk factors were independently associated with the development of VTEs. ^ Conclusions: Risk factors associated with each type of SSI were different in patients that have undergone colon surgery. Each model had a unique cluster of risk factors. Several risk factors, including increased BMI, duration of surgery, wound class, and laparoscopic approach, were significant across all 4 models but no statistical inferences can be made about their different effect estimates. These results suggest that aggregating SSIs may misattribute and hide true associations with risk factors. Using polytomous regression to assess multiple risk factors with the multiple types of SSI, this study was able to identify several risk factors that had significant effect heterogeneity across the 3 types of SSI challenging the use of aggregate SSI outcomes. The third article recognizes the strong association between VTEs and the 3 types of SSIs. Clinicians understand the difference between superficial, deep and organ/space SSIs. Our results indicate that they should be considered individually in future studies.^